Everything is gained in a non-violent revolution, nothing changes with a violent revolution, we choose!
The following is an except from the writtings of Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Leo Tolstoy was considered a Christian anarchist and supporter of civil anarchy as well.
http://www.kingdomnow.org/w-inyou00.html
"Tiflis, October 2, 1818.
"In the morning the commandant told me that five peasants belonging to a landowner in the Tamboff government had lately been sent to Georgia. These men had been sent for soldiers, but they would not serve; they had been several times flogged and made to run the gauntlet, but they would submit readily to the cruelest tortures, and even to death, rather than serve. 'Let us go,' they said, 'and leave us alone; we will not hurt anyone; all men are equal, and the Tzar is a man like us; why should we pay him tribute; why should I expose my life to danger to kill in battle some man who has done me no harm? You can cut us to pieces and we will not be soldiers. He who has compassion on us will give us charity, but as for the government rations, we have not had them and we do not want to have them' These were the words of those peasants, who declare that there are numbers like them Russia. They brought them four times before the Committee of Ministers, and at last decided to lay the matter before the Tzar who gave orders that they should be taken to Georgia for correction, and commanded the commander-in-chief to send him a report every month of their gradual success in bringing these peasants to a better mind."
How the correction ended is not known, as the whole episode indeed was unknown, having been kept in profound secrecy.
The following are Leo Tolstoy's views on anarchy;
"The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order, and in the assertion that, without Authority, there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a (violent) revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power…There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man".
Unfortunately as the example of Russia shows us, if we allow violent revolution to occur, we will exchange a King for a dictator.
grant
National Convention.
In September there will be the Republican convention in St. Paul. Hopefully I will be there as a delegate.
The police have been warned that there could be violent demonstrations outside the convention. This will not serve our movement. Some people may believe this is the time to exercise their "Constitutional rights", it is not and will only defeat our movement. Regardless of your purpose for supporting Ron Paul, regardless of your individual views on gun rights, drug laws, or any number of beliefs, this is not the place to demonstrate them. It is a time to promote Ron Paul. 999,999 non-violent demonstrators will be destroyed if 1 violent demonstrator crosses the line. Don't be provoked, we need to practice this at home before we get there. Practice calling each other names at Meet-up groups, it may prepare you for when we meet in St. Paul.
grant
For now Ron Paul for president, but eventually...
http://www.kingdomnow.org/w-inyou10.html
"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to government. So it was understood at its very commencement; it was for that cause that Christ was crucified. So it has always been understood by people who were not under the necessity of justifying a Christian government. Only from the time that the heads of government assumed an external and nominal Christianity, men began to invent all the impossible, cunningly devised theories by means of which Christianity can be reconciled with government. But no honest and serious-minded man of our day can help seeing the incompatibility of true Christianity--the doctrine of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love--with government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars. The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility of recognizing government, but even destroys its very foundations".
Are you testing me now?
He overturned tables in his Father's temple, if that is what you mean.
grant
He wasn't perfect, but I can only think of one that ever was.
I am sure Tolstoy probably made many mistakes, I know I have. When I was young I used to idolize John Wayne, thought it was great to smoke, drink and be a soldier. (Something he never was) I joined the Marines in 1980, was "reassigned". How many of you have ever killed anyone? Even in self defense?
Do you think we should be selling weapons to Freedom fighters in Iraq? Do you suggest men in Iraq should buy guns and fight back? I have cousins over there just doing their job, should they be shot when they go into Iraqi homes? Is that going to save innocent lives?
Today there is only one man that I admire, he hid or disappeared into the crowds when they came after him, and he did not fight when they came to kill him. I bow to only one King and Judge. Who will you bow to or salute?
Do tell me, my anarchist, pacifist internet friend
Who were the only people whom Jesus chose to get violent with (that was recorded anyway) and why did he do so?
and just who was tolstoy as you seem quite enamored with him
to be read in calm voice. TOLSTOI WAS A wealthy aristocrat, afeudal lord in a society that was still medieval. He led a privileged life, supported by the labor of innumerable peasants whom he ruled like a deity. His marriage was extremely happy and productive--of books and children-- for 17 years. But Tolstoi's religious crisis shattered the family's security and led to thirty years of bitter conflict with his sons and his wife, Sofia. Tolstoi wanted to give away all his possessions and disinherit his wife and children; Sofia fought to keep the money that would allow the family to maintain their luxurious way of life.In about 1879, after completing AnnaKarenina, Tolstoi began to experience the spiritual crisis that led to these dramatic changes. The family's move to Moscow in 1881 intensified his hatred of materialistic society. In 1883 he renounced his property--in land, copyrights, and money--and gave Sofia the income from all his works published before 1881. He abandoned literary works for religious tracts and became a prophet, moralist, and reformer. The saintly sybarite tried to imitate the simple life of the peasants. He wore bast sandals and coarse peasant blouses, did manual labor with his former serfs, made shoes, and gave up hunting, meat, wine, and tobacco. He was tempted by suicide, and feared he might hang himself from the beam of his study.
After a period of repentant worshipin the Orthodox Church, he adopted primitive Christianity, attempted to purify religion of dogmas and mysteries, and tried to simplify the message of the Gospels. In 1891 he publicly renounced the copyright of all his works written after 1881; in 1892 he divided his estates among his wife and children. He broke with the Church for distorting Christ's teachings and was excommunicated in February 1901.Tolstoi's unusual beliefs attractedhordes of parasitic, foolish, and fanatical followers, whom Sofia called "the Dark Ones.' Dressed in greasy sheepskin coats and muddy felt boots, they invaded the household and intensified the domestic conflicts. Yet Tolstoi was not able to put his principles into practice. He still fathered children, though he preached purity and hated his wife; still lived in comfort while advocating asceticism. After Tolstoi's conversion, his children lived in an atmosphere of religious mania. Sofia's emotional instability, irrational behavior, and desperate demands for money finally drove Tolstoi to flight, illness, and death.In the final months of his life, theoctogenarian Tolstoi--influenced by his most educated, principled, and power-hungry disciple, Vladimir Chertkov-- became completely alienated from his wife and sons. Chertkov transcribed his diaries and controlled his manuscripts, which had, until then, been the responsibility of Sofia. In June 1910 she had a nervous breakdown. In July Tolstoi made a secret will that rejected Sofia, named Chertkov as literary executor, and renounced the rights to all his works.He fled from home on October 28of that year and--surrounded by three of his children--died on November 7 in the remote railway station at Astapovo. A famous photograph shows the pathetic Sofia, shut out of Tolstoi's bare room and staring through the window at his deathbed. A few years later, all the wealth and property at the root of this bitter struggle was expropriated by the Bolshevik regime.
Still here, not going away.
Typical, instead of discussing, there are only attacks and threats of violence. You are really very much a neo conservative, are you not? You prefer to insist that if you are not with me, than you must be against me. You don't need to make another post, just flag this one, it is your right to do so. If enough people agree, then it will disappear. At least have the courage to take the first shot if you are intent on voilent resistance. I do own property in Brazil, I am a free man or would you make that a crime, too? I have also written many posts, including one for people to plant Liberty Gardens, way back before the price of food went up...
There used to be a lot more like me on this site, people like you have driven them off.
manystroms guidelines
Engaging in flame wars or personal attacks on other members, racist remarks, posting material completely unrelated to the campaign or the presidential race, bumping your own thread to keep it on the front page, posting the same non-related comment on multiple threads to promote your website or event, blatant advertising and EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS. If you cannot consistently spell or check your grammar, you may also be banned. Sorry. Posting here is a privilege, not a right.
To be read in a calm tone.
You obviously haven't read much of what Ron Paul has written or supports. Have you?
He supports the Constitution as do I, but he is not a slave to it.
He did not think Abraham Lincoln was justified to go to a war against the south and kill over 180,000 people.
He would like to use the Constitution as a means of government, but he is not a bound to it and would be willing to write a new constitution if necessary.
He is Pro-Life as am I.
He is a Christain and says he follows Jesus.
Jesus hid and disappeared many times when they tried to catch him and he did not fight when they came to kill him. Was he a coward?
Your arguements are for violence, you do not even want to discuss non-violent ways. All you want to do is drive people from this movement. You will not win.
[iehuvihs] What gives you this idea?
[iehuvihs] What gives you this idea? >>>>>>>>>>
"He would like to use the Constitution as a means of government, but he is not a bound to it and would be willing to write a new constitution if necessary."
What you believe too be true, is true too you... :-)
What you believe to be true, is true to you... "until you change your mind"
Your arguements are not convincing.
I see that you are still a slave to the Constitution, your all for gun rights that the Constitution gives you. Oh how wonderful, as a woman, maybe the Constitution now allows you to vote too, wow.
I have the right to own guns, and I can exercise it whether a constitution gives it to me or not, I am not a slave.
Follow the Constitution if you like, but at least read and understand it, you are under the will of the government, you are a slave, the Congress makes laws, 9 judges interpret them and 1 "man" executes the law. The Constitution does not give you the right to fight the government, the Declaration of Independence does, wake up!!!
I bow to one King and Judge.
grant
this is history bub
not just my arguments.i am not a slave to the Constitution, i honor it and wish to follow it (in its original form) as does Ron Paul.im still trying to figure out why you are here on this site,unless its merely to hear your self talk ,,over and over and over.
"I see that you are still a slave to the Constitution"
I find it disturbing that you feel that our Constitution enslaves us.
And you clearly don't understand that the Constitution doesn't grant us any of our rights.
The more you post, the more you dig yourself a hole. Keep going. Tell us how any form of government is evil, and how we all ought to be free to do whatever we choose. Tell us how an anarchistic society is supreme to all, as that is clearly your opinion. Tell us how, in a society with no laws, with no governance, how you'd propose to defend yourself from the people who'd most certainly victimize you, especially given your pacifist views.
You're making it more & more clear you're full of $hit the more you speak. Keep it up. We like it when people like you who really don't support the idea of our constitutional republic operating the way it should out yourselves.
hey jeff
mornin to ya..this guy is something else,,i really dont think he is a RP supporter in a true sense,,although he is listed as a member here for quite some while, ive not seen any posts promoting the campaign or the ideals of Ron Paul and our Constitution, quite to the contrary, he is an anarchist here to promote his own ideals.he wants us all to lay down when the time comes and "take a bullet" he says.another member tipped me off that he has property in brazil so im thinking when the time comes he 'll be off to let the real patriots do the work of reclaiming the country..not a big surprise hey? i wasnt going to make another post and hoped this thread would quietly disappear into the nite however he breaks manystroms guidelines by CONTINUALLY keeping this thread bumped .i have no respect for a man that wont defend his own family as he has stated over and over.cripes, what has happend to the men of this country? our forefathers must be turning over in their graves.
Thankyou "liveFreedom".
Eventhough I don't agree with everything the author writes he makes valid points. Back when DailyPaul began, postings for a non-violent revolution were a majority, many people were driven off and left, glad your still here.
Here is a list of 198 non-violent ways to protest.
http://www.secession.net/nv-action-methods.html
grant
ahh, still bumping your own post i see
well then lets try to give a more balanced picture and see how history relates
In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate.
But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970 from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated.
In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.
Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless.
Let's try listening to what Ron Paul says first,
Ron Paul has suggested that "non-violent" civil disobedience may be necessary and that some of us may wind up going to jail.
At least give this means of revolution a chance. We still may be able to use the Constitution to our advantage and change things around. But it will require that some of us take risks; but the minute one of us is provoked to violence this will be used by the other side, and we will lose all moral high ground.
grant
Duties of the Citizen in Times of Trial or Danger
From "Duties of the Citizen in Times of Trial or Danger" by William Ellery Channing.
http://www.uubgky.org/channwar.htm
-LF
_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.
This is a good subject for people to study.
Many revolutionaries were none violent and refused to fight Those who fought did win the battle, but we have yet to win the war. After the violent revolution, the farmers had to pay the war debt, so their farms were taken if they refused to pay the taxes. This lead to the replacement of the government under the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution, to a government under the Constitution, which was drawn up to establish a the new system. Article VI of the Constitution gives the government the right to collect taxes for war debt including those which occured years before the Constitution was drafted and the government has never been out of debt since. One war leads to another and war debt keeps a few men rich.
Wasn't the "American Revolution" a violent revolution?
??
*********************************************
The Second Amendment
The ORIGINAL Homeland Security
Yes, the war for American
Yes, the war for American Independence was fought with real bullets but only after a critical mass (approx. 85% - 15% Tories vs. Patriots respectively) was rebuffed in their non-violent attempts. We are nowhere near that critical mass today. There is no under current that resists the imperial empire with actions (Boston Tea Party, hanging the King in effigy etc.) If there was, "revenuers" would randomly disappear like they did during prohibition. There would be more pockets of towns such as Brattleboro, VT that seek to arrest Bush or Cheney should they ever enter their jurisdiction. Those who kidnapped the FLDS children in Texas would be themselves kidnapped and possibly tried and executed. Several particularly egregious offensive abuses of gov't power would be met with vigilante justice. Not that these actions are to be commended, but their absence is evidence of too much compliance. Certainly we would see more hung juries and nullification than we presently see. And I believe there are only six States that have defied Real ID.
This section from our Declaration of Independence illustrates what I mean:
"...accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Presently we are tolerating the abuses and evils, not because they are less evil or abusive but because we are ignorant, content and satisfied. When hyperinflation and $10 gas hit us, even then we may not have the requisite "critical mass" needed for reform. Even then we may still clamor for our statist masters to "save us". We are just too complacent. And until that changes visibly and on an appreciable scale, there is little to hope for. Heck, we know things are bad, and they are wrong but we stupidly clamor for "the security of servitude in Egypt" and more big gov't "solutions". That must change and to this end Dr. Paul's book refocuses our vision of what a free and responsible (they are always together) society looks like. His book helps us sharpen our aim and direct our paths. Plus it also helps stir up in us discontent with our present slave masters.
Once we start to see random acts of vigilante justice (some taser happy jack booted thug gets shot, or those NY cops who murdered Sean Bell end up disappearing, and sheriffs who whitewash and cover-up abuses by their deputies with their "reviews that showed the officers acted properly" are themselves visited with measurable retribution... once we see more hung juries (especially in tax and gun cases), once we see more political officials scared to render unjust decisions like the NC Attorney General who succeeded the evil Mike Nifong (Duke non-rape case witch hunt) and refused to cover his ass for fear of an uprising and rightly called him a "rogue prosecutor".... Once we see these things, then we will start to see the embers of what it will take to turn this country around. Until then, we are in the "tolerate evils" category.
How the established fascist entrenched imperialist rulers respond to those embers will determine the path of bloodshed or little bloodshed. The text of the Second Amendment shows that our founders knew what it could deteriorate to.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK (quoting him proves that "even a broken clock is right twice a day")
Neocons_suck
Stop bowing to government.
I don't speak for the rest of you, since I am a Christian anarchist, and I would never deny that you have the "right" to fight or to kill, but I will try to persuade you that there is a better way to win. I am here to get Ron Paul elected and attract people who are like minded to the cause. Or should we deny pacifists like Amish men or FLDS men the right to participate in our movement?
grant
Was'nt this nation created...
by a violent revolution???
Pacifism is your right.
Pacifism is your right.
Just don't speak for the rest of us.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
It's not that simple, I bow to only one King and Judge.
You may will win the fight but only until you kill me, so you will lose your freedom, while I may take your punches and die or persuade you not to kill me, either way, I will retain my freedom from bowing to your desire to fight.
Why would I fight you? I am on the same side. It is the enemy that wins by us fighting.
grant
I will not give up, I just won't kill another brother.
I do not give up holding up my Ron Paul sign around town when fools yell at me to give up.
I do not give up working to get Ron Paul elected for president when the media tells us he has no chance of winning.
And I won't give up trying to persuade people from turning to violence to gain their freedom.
grant
You won't give up, but you're not willing to fight
You either never surrender and fight to defend your beliefs if necessary, or you don't.
Let me put it to you this way. If you and I were to spar, you could choose to either resist my attempts to win by scoring points thru striking you by use of physical force (aka BLOCKING), by attempting to win for yourself (blocking AND attempting to and succeeding in striking me), or you could try to talk me out of it and peacefully resist (aka stand there and do nothing physical).
Now, if you do nothing but talk, I promise I'll win. If you choose to block only, I promise I'll win in that case too. Your only chance to win is to use force not only to block my blows but to strike me. That's it. It's that simple.
So, if all you're prepared to do is talk, you've already made the choice to loose. I don't care what kind of esoteric spin you want to give it. A choice to do nothing to defend yourself is a choice to loose.
So...if you're not willing to fight, I don't care if you won't give up. I'll beat you every time. Your only chance to win is to be willing to fight in your defense.
Guns aren't the only way.
I would suggest buying something more practical than weapons, for when it comes to killing you can do it just as well with a butterknife or a toothpick. If they do, as I believe the Vadels did to defeat the Romans, they just pillaged and burned all their farmlands in Northern Africa and starved them into submission.
WE GET IT ALREADY!
You want to give up without a fight. We get it.
There's plenty of us who won't. Do you get that?
everyone will have a different reaction....
Everyone is going to have a different reaction to martial law. I am as of yet pretty undecided on how I should respond. Part of me wants to just go into hiding in order to avoid violence, because I really cannot see myself harming another person.
However, I am purchasing some waeponry soon, so that option will be on the table for me. I certainly would not blame or discourage any one else from defending themselves, and in fact I think it will be necessary eventually. But I would also not discourage those who wish to remain peaceful. If somehow footage of people being violated got out that would send a very powerful message to Americans. But by then they will have closed the internet, shut off phones, and taken control of the remaining media. This is going to be a volatile time, I really don't know what the appropriate course of action will be, I guess I am just going to prepare as much as possible and then "play it by ear" so to speak.
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Ron Paul